Hi Ian/Marcus,
Thanks everybody for a healthy discussion that I am sure will help many
implementors.
My idea was not to belittle what the community has achieved with the
limited resources. That would be unkind on my part to all the community
members who have(and continue to) invested their time
Hi Marcus,
Thanks for your support.
I would love to see NHSX support something like this, especially as I know
the FHIR folks are going down that road and we need something that goes
well beyond just openEHR artefacts and into termsets, valuesets, rules etc.
Every community working on health
Hi Paul,
We recently challenged our regional health authorities about the governance of
a structured EHR that you’re describing:
“In all four regions, the procurement and/or introduction of structured EHR
solutions is imminent. Three of the regions will use a common information
standard in the
Interesting discussion and I agree with Ian that the openEHR community
should remember to give itself credit for what HAS been done, with very
little resource, rather than beating themselves up about what tooling is
missing from the ecosystem.
An automated archetype package and dependency
Hi Paul,
Nicely summed up.
You definitely need to manage your CDR artefacts in just the same way as
any other software libraries. This is currently more manually intensive
than it should be but one can see how it could be largely automated
However, maintaining coherent semantics is much more
Very timely discussion as we are hitting this issue right now in Scotland,
and meeting together tomorrow to agree an approach - hopefully Silje and
Ian joining us for that.
We need not just versioning management of the content but also a way to
agree a coherent set of archetypes and templates for
Thanks both,
Very helpful. Just in case folks get too negative about what we have
achieved, I am currently working on 4 different regional/national EHR
projects. On all 4 projects, 80% of the content is covered by published (or
at least very stable) international CKM archetypes. Once you get to
Hi everyone,
It seems like Dileep’s original questions have been largely answered by other
members of the community, thank you!
There’s been some added discussion about the effects of changing archetypes on
implementations and implementers. Heather wrote an email about this four years
ago
I'll let Silje and Heather talk more about overall progress with the
publication [process but we all have ot recognise that this is a huge job
which just takes time. As Sebastian has said most of the work done, even at
an editorial level is done by volunteers, in particular, the Norwegian CKM
team
>
> to download, for example click on the Details Button underneath each
> archetype revision in the revision history.
>
You can also keep track of all the changes in the git repository at
https://github.com/openEHR/CKM-mirror
Thanks Sebastian. That is what I was looking for
regards
Dileep V
To download, for example click on the Details Button underneath each archetype
revision in the revision history.
You can also keep track of all the changes in the git repository at
https://github.com/openEHR/CKM-mirror
While I obviously agree with the aim of everybody using the same archetypes,
>
> An ideal scenario would be to have a record of the archetypes someone is
> using, and when a new revision is published, run the diff between that and
> the revision the implementer is using, and notify of possible
> incompatibilities, that way we can know exactly what's wrong and fix
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
